Yet another child abducted to Costa Rica. This time it all seems to have turned out ok in the end. It doesn't mention the Hague Convention at all, so I'm not sure if she returned voluntarily or if the Costa Rican courts actually returned a child. In the case of the Koyama child, neither the abductor nor the child even has Costa Rican citizenship. Even Mexico can get those cases right...

By Associated Press6:54 AM CDT, May 25, 2010SAN ANTONIO (AP) — No sentencing date has been set for a surgeon who fled Texas in July 2008 with her daughter but returned the girl and pleaded guilty to international parental kidnapping.

A former University of Texas Health Science Center instructor jailed last month for fleeing with her daughter to Central America in 2008 pleaded guilty to one count of international parental kidnapping, officials said Monday.Lynanne J. Foster, who surrendered daughter Camille when tracked down by her ex-husband in Costa Rica in December, entered the plea Monday before U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Nowak.

No sentencing date was set for Foster, who vanished with Camille during a court-authorized visitation. The former assistant professor of orthopedics, who'd moved to Boerne in 2006, faces up to three years in prison, but she could receive probation.

Foster, who was free on bond, was arrested April 12 after arriving on a Mexicana Airlines flight at San Antonio International Airport.

At the time, her ex-husband Galen Kaufman said Camille, now 9, was doing great and that he hoped Foster returned to make amends.

I'm still wondering what "patriarchal" abuse is. I can't think of a definition that makes sense (of course that very well might be the problem).

She said patrimonial abuse. :confused:

I still don't understand how she thinks fleeing the country (that she is a citizen of) is the correct answer. If indeed she is still married, I wouldn't go bragging about it (not that I'm here to judge her about her infidelities).

She needs to bring Emily and herself home and fight it out in the courts in the US. Mother or not, she fled with Emily (ie kidnapped her) without thinking about Emily's best interest (she was only thinking of herself, imo). What's in her [Emily's] best interest is to know both parents -- not live a life on the run with her mother. If Trina knew all of this about Roy (the drug/alcohol abuse) before she had a child with him, then how does that make her any better? She stayed with, and conceived a child with, a man that she alledges did illegal things.

Roy - is your name not on the birth certificate? A DNA test is only about $600-700 (unless ordered by a judge)....maybe Trina should bring Emily home so that it can be performed.

Trina won't do a DNA test because then I will have the ULTIMATE proof that I am the father of Emily. As for all of her allegations, just a smoke screen of hers. I have a journal of Trina's that she forgot/left behind that shows in her own handwriting that she was going to stop attending family functions due to the fact that her family does drugs... wanna see it??? I'm sick and tired of all the banter and bad mouthing going on and really wish it would go away so my kids don't get to read it later in life. As we all know none of this will disappear and is forever to be seen on the internet and I wish Trina and her supporters would realize they are doing more damage than good by saying bad things that aren't true.

Got an email from the Congressman's office today and we need your help... please email me if you already haven't at lttlmtn@gmail.com I really need to get the Congressman some answers, contact me and I'll forward the email.

it appears that one of the kidnappers from around the world is following this thread and has now been harassing Congressman Blunt with an email that is very wrong with the facts included, but why doesn't that surprise me? I know the author of the email wasn't even Trina as she doesn't have the capacity for such an email. I don't know if she's capable of an original thought at this time???

See if you can figure out who wrote it... it's pretty obvious. Here's the email:

Dear Congressman Roy Blunt,

It has come to my attention that Roy Koyama of Springfield, Missouri has asked for your help in bringing a child named Emily Koyama back to the United States from Costa Rica under a Hague Convention application. After researching this case, I have found that the court in Missouri and Costa Rica did not follow proper procedures in dealing with such a delicate issue.

Because Trina Atwell was never married to Roy Koyama, Mr. Koyama would have had to undergo a DNA test to establish paternity BEFORE any parental rights could be established in the Missouri Court.

Paternity as pertains to Missouri Law:

If parents are married when a child is born, the husband is automatically considered the child's father. However, when parents are unmarried, a father has no legal rights unless he establishes paternity. Until paternity is proven, a father does not have any claim for custody of the child. Paternity can be established at the child's birth when unmarried parents sign an Affidavit Acknowledging Paternity at the hospital. Otherwise, genetic testing must be done on the father and the child and the results are recorded in a court order.

It seems Mr. Koyama was given a default custody judgment of a child by a court in Missouri that was born out of wedlock with Trina Atwell, when paternity had not even been proven which is contrary to Missouri State Law. Furthermore, if paternity had not been established, Trina Atwell would have had sole parental rights to her daughter Emily and in moving to Costa Rica, violated no laws in the process.

To further complicate matters, Mr. Koyama made a Hague Convention application to the Costa Rican Court in August 2009. He did this three months before he obtained his default custody order from the court (that appears to be in direct violation of Missouri State Law pertaining to establishing paternity). In light of these issues, Mr. Koyama had no legal right to make a Hague Convention application at that time because paternity had not been established and a custody order had not been granted. Both of which would have had to have been completed for him to have any parental rights over the child.

I find it difficult to believe that a family court judge would have ignored Missouri Law when confronted with the task of making a life changing decisions on behalf of a minor child.I also find it difficult to believe that given Mr. Koyama's violent history, (he has had restraining orders in both California and Missouri to keep him away from ex-partners because of aggression) the court would have made such a decision (a default custody judgment) with regard to the minor child, Emily.

It seems to me that in an effort for family courts to be seen as fair to fathers, violent men are routinely granted visitation and custody, while mothers and children trying to escape abuse are routinely kept within arm’s reach of the abuser and punished with sanctions, loss of custody and even jail if they don't comply.Sometimes in desperation, these mothers flee the country in order to keep themselves and their children safe. In doing so, the parent who is trying to protect themselves and their children becomes the “bad guy” and the children, by default, get turned over to the abuser; all the while the abuser is made out to be the model parent.

This case as it isn't as simple as a father requesting a child to be removed from Costa Rica and returned to the US. I respectfully ask that you look at all aspects of this case before you take action on Roy Koyama's behalf.

1. Trina Atwell was never married to Roy Koyama and had sole parental rights when she moved to Costa Rica with Emily. In fact she was married to Henner Chavarria.2. Paternity was never established by the court according to Missiouri Law.3. Trina Atwell was never served papers advising her that a legal suit for custody had been filed on behalf of Mr. Koyama; in fact, Mr. Koyama had stated that he did not know where she was.4. A default custody order was given to Mr. Koyama without first establishing paternity5. A Hague convention application was acted upon without a custody order or a paternity test establishing Mr. Koyama's parental rights6. There is a history of domestic violence from Mr. Koyama’s previous marriage and from his relationship with Trina Atwell that should have been considered.7. According to Title 18, Section 1204 of the United States Code it is a federal crime to remove a child from the United States or retain a child outside the United States with the intent to obstruct a parent's custodial rights, or to attempt to do so. See 18 U.S.C. § 1204. This crime is punishable by up to three years in prison. The law provides a defense where the taking parent acted pursuant to a valid court order obtained under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, or where the taking parent was fleeing domestic violence, or where the failure to return the child resulted from circumstances beyond the taking parent's control and the taking parent made reasonable efforts to notify the left behind parent within 24 hours and returned the child as soon as possible.www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/ipk.html]http://www.facebook.com/l/2de04;[url=http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/ipk.html]www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/ipk.html[/url]8. In fact, the Federal Bureau of Investigation refused to make this case a federal case and it remains a state warrant that the DA has stated only remains in place because she wishes to compel Trina to return to Missouri and settle in court there.

Thank you for your time and consideration. You can contact Trina Atwell at this email address or phone number:

Funny how this person keeps mentioning how she didn't commit a crime because she was running from a violent relationship, but the court documents and testimony contradict these facts... Trina's sister testified in open court that they were planning the kidnapping for several months before she left (hmmm, running, in fact using me then stealing). The real facts are still this... I have two winning judgments that were granted due to the evidence I presented that discounted her allegations of "everything". This person that wrote this for Trina really doesn't know the entire story and needs to deal with her own kidnapping problems.

Ok... give up? It's the infamous: Luanne K. Bobo Uttley

She seems to be taking a big role in Trina's case now that is at the Appeal stage she wants to be part of the story, which only makes my case stronger.

LOL.. Luanne Bobo.. PARENTAL KIDNAPPERS UNITE!! Hey Bobo, my Congressman is David Price, you should contact him too so you can sing your sad song for him.

She's in bed with honorary NAMBLA member and parental kidnapper, Emmanuel Lazaradis. If parental kidnappers formed together like Voltron her and Manny would be the butt. Having idiots like that with outstanding warrants for their arrest contact your congressman can only help your case. I remember seeing her post on the news articles on your case but I'm not sure what she wrote. She droned on for pages and all I remember seeing as I skimmed over it trying to get to something about the actual article, was some noise about "i'm really a hero blah, blah, blah, abuse, blah, blah, blah, Pay attention to me!!," ad nauseam.

Like Manny she has successfully kidnapped her kids and alienated them from the other parent but continues to hop up and down claiming she's not a kidnapper, criminal, child abuser or crappy parent. The fact that no one is really listening to her or cares what her lame excuses are really just begs the question, who is she trying to convince? Herself, her growing kids? Maybe someday when she's old and alone she'll realize that, you can legally get away with kidnapping, just don't expect anyone to like you or respect you for it. It's a brave new world Bobo, and your crimes will be known to the world and to the children you've victimized. At least you can make friends with other parental kidnappers -- just don't get into a serious relationship with them and have more kids.. prolly wouldn't go well.

Oh, and btw, before you said Bobo the clown, I was going to guess our resident troll and harasser of victimized parents, Jose Grullon.

If I recall correctly, she never claimed abuse in her case. She wouldn't let the kids go to Arkansas for visitation (because it's too far away, apparently, although she also said in dad's modification of custody petition that England is close enough to now have jurisdiction in the case) and dad filed for custody in Arkansas. She never showed up (guess it's not that close after all) so he won by default. On her site she uses the visitation thing and claims dad cheated on child support somehow. She does say the kids won't talk to him on the phone. That's probably true but you can all guess why.

If I recall correctly, she never claimed abuse in her case. She wouldn't let the kids go to Arkansas for visitation (because it's too far away, apparently, although she also said in dad's modification of custody petition that England is close enough to now have jurisdiction in the case) and dad filed for custody in Arkansas. She never showed up (guess it's not that close after all) so he won by default. On her site she uses the visitation thing and claims dad cheated on child support somehow. She does say the kids won't talk to him on the phone. That's probably true but you can all guess why.

I learned all I need to know about Lulu Bobo when she linked to Manny's phishing site and started her long and banal diatribes on the news articles about Emily's abduction. Without knowing any of the parties or any of the history she takes it upon herself to write a US Congressman. Did she bother to contact Roy for his side of the story before ranting on the articles about his abducted daughter with 500 word comment essays or writing his Congressman with stories about women in abusive relationships? Nope. Like most parental kidnappers she's a hypocrite who waxes poetic about "looking at both sides of the story" and "all her evidence" but when it suits the line of argument she's peddling on any given day she will ignore all the evidence except that which is convenient. Seems more the profile of a drama queen looking for attention and validation than a concerned bystander, but people who alienate children are too selfish to see the difference. I doubt she really even gives a crap about the Koyama family, she just wants to get her name in the news (which she claims is her ex-husbands motivation). It amazes me when parental alienators claim, with pride, that their kids don't want anything to do with the other parent -- as though they have achieved something of value by teaching their own kids that half of their heritage, genes and history is garbage and by spoon feeding young and impressionable children, their own children at that, hate for the other half of their family. She can say anything she wants. Anyone with any intellectual honesty doesn't promote "the European Centre" or its schitzo "Secretariat."

Actually though, since she wants to cast aspersions about the validity of Koyama's abduction case, lets take a look at hers:

On the main page of her site, front and center, it says:

Quote from: Kidnapper

"Unfortunately, the behaviour of my my ex husband Mr Bobo, (who currently works at Arkansas Children's Hospital) began deteriorating in November 2004 when he was confronted with a contempt charge for back child support and continued to the extent that the children refused to have contact with him in November 2005."

Hmm... ok, a six year old and an eight year old refused to talk to their father because they were angry he wasn't paying child support. Really? That's absurd on its face unless the kids were the ones managing the finances. I can see how the conversation would go though, "sorry kids, no ice cream today because your dad won't pay child support." Or, "sorry kids, we had to cancel the trip to Disney because your dad won't pay child support." Followed by, "sorry kids we had to sell your toys and bikes...." etc, etc. Small children don't abandon a parent because of money. More likely she made her adult problems the children's problems and taught them to hate the person she painted as the source of all their problems. It's parental alienation 101.

Then, when referring to Manny's fraudulent children's charity (which I will not link to,) she says it's:

Quote from: Kidnapper

"A GREAT site that is being PROACTIVE in tackling the issue of Missing Child FRAUD"

She praises Manny's site which lists the names and pictures of kidnapped kids, including my son, and calls them "Missing Children Fraud," without the permission of either of the children's parents (a crime he gets away with by hosting the site in Panama and hiding in Greece.) While being intentionally oblivious to the fact that, where she lives in the UK, that site is a crime and has been shut down by ISP's in the UK and the Netherlands and it's associated blog was shut down by Wordpress and booted off the Huffington Post, but then, to a parental kidnapper, the ends always justify the means and she'll jump into bed with anyone who appears to support some part of her claims (their motives for doing so notwithstanding) She later says:

Quote from: Kidnapper

"It is a very sad day indeed that unscrupulous people feel the need to lie and are empowered by the courts and organizations such as yours when it is clear that their only goal is vicious attack on another individual. It is even sadder when targeting that individual they are permitted and encouraged to use the images of innocent children to accomplish that goal."

Pot calling the kettle black? In her communications with the NCMEC she tells them:

Quote from: Kidnapper

" It is unfortunate that you only require a police report and a warrant in order for information to be included on NCMEC."

Yeah cause um.. like we should use other criteria beyond the probable cause that's required to obtain a warrant.. like the word of a kidnapper facing a criminal indictment and hiding in a foreign country.

"Unfortunately, the behaviour of my my ex husband Mr Bobo, (who currently works at Arkansas Children's Hospital) began deteriorating in November 2004 when he was confronted with a contempt charge for back child support and continued to the extent that the children refused to have contact with him in November 2005."

Hmm... ok, a six year old and an eight year old refused to talk to their father because they were angry he wasn't paying child support. Really? That's absurd on its face unless the kids were the ones managing the finances. I can see how the conversation would go though, "sorry kids, no ice cream today because your dad won't pay child support." Or, "sorry kids, we had to cancel the trip to Disney because your dad won't pay child support." Followed by, "sorry kids we had to sell your toys and bikes...." etc, etc. Small children don't abandon a parent because of money. More likely she made her adult problems the children's problems and taught them to hate the person she painted as the source of all their problems. It's parental alienation 101.

Except he was paying child support. She thought he wasn't paying enough of it. The court thought otherwise.

It probably wasn't even that Lulu wanted more money. It was probably the wishes of the children that the father pay more. Understandable that the mother would try to give the kids the things that they wanted... in the children's best interest of course. Child abductors are always just doing what's best for the child and never out of selfish self-interest. Also not surprising that the children no longer want anything to do with their bio-dad after he refused to allow their voice to be "heard." I know back when I was eight years old and doing my mom's finances I would have broken all contact with my father if I had noticed that his payments weren't what I thought they should be.

Well... now I am going to another court date because Trina has decided to try and submit a Motion to Modify the custody judgment I won in November 2009. Just another stall tactic by here side. Please wish Emily a Happy Birthday Monday as she turns 2 years old July 5, 2010. Thanks for all the support!

Happy Birthday to my baby girl! Me and my boys got to sing Happy Birthday and speak to Emily today for a little while. Her mother has sent me pictures and now has let me and the boys hear her voice. I am very grateful that this happened today. Very emotional stuff, but it's good stuff when I get to see my boys eyes lite up when they heard her voice. I have a feeling good things are going to happen.

Thank you to everyone for the continued support and Thank you to Trina for making it happen today.

Happy Birthday Emily! Hope you had a wonderful day. I am sure it was because you were able to speak with your Dad and brothers. Hope you will be able to be with them soon so they can smother you with love and kisses.

"Every parent who has a child and they tuck him in at night, or her in at night, and they wish the best and only the best and they will always protect the child and do whatever they can, but most of the time they don't have to prove it. I'm in the proving grounds, to myself and to my child. I have to get him home and I will do whatever I have to. I'll never stop to save him." --David Goldman